Why are some NPCs so amazingly irritating? (e.g. Khelben Blackstaff)

[green slime]

Yeah you could. It's really good advice to live by.

Is it?!? But then, then,.... You mean to say.... All this time, I could've.... but then....

*ARGGGHHHHHHHH*

You could say that about anything.

You might be wrong, though. And then were would you be? I mean, all those NPC personalities, just where would you put them? They'd be like, littering the place! And, if you don't not use them, well then... what's left then?

 

[Umbran]

I think players will always hate things that they can't affect.

Or, alternatively, that they feel are more important to their story than they are. It is one thing to have massively powerful NPCs in the world. It is another to have the campaign plotline be more concerned with their actions than with those of the PCs.

Mind you, that means that it often isn't about the NPCs themselves at all, but about how the DM integrates them into his campaign - or how the players fear they'd be integrated.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

I dont have a problem with any of them to be honest. I just wish the villains got as much time as the good guys.

 

[WayneLigon]

I know that 90% of the FR NPCs I hate blatantly violate the rules in some serious way, often in a way that players would kill to do. I think part of it is that they're clearly the "pets" of writers and GMs who have little concern for how pampering said pet will negatively impact the setting, so maybe that's it.

I wouldn't say it was so much being a 'pet' favorite but that FR's NPC's really became annoying during that time when TSR forgot that games and books were two similar but at the same time very different things. Especially with the way the D&D rules were at the time, it was almost impossible to have an NPC less than 20th level that many parties couldn't mow through in two rounds if they were given any lip. So they had to have these super special items and abilities that no-one else could get, in order to 'compete' and shut down anyone who tried to kill them in a round or so.

 

[Drowbane]

<snip>Terminator-Campaign<snip>

How many Terminators does it take to drop a (properly built) Drizzt? ...shing-shing-slice...

We may never know.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

How many Terminators does it take to drop a (properly built) Drizzt? ...shing-shing-slice...

We may never know.

One.

The only Terminator type I know of that is suitable for DnD is "whatever the GM wants"; eg if the heroes have lots of hit points, the creature has lots of hit points and does lots of damage). That falls under bad GMing if done excessively.

 

[Samnell]

I think it's entirely reasonable for players to viscerally hate NPCs that break the rules in the ways that PCs would never be allowed to do. As a matter of fact, I think it's to be expected. The entire practice reeks of DM cheating. The DM gets to use all the toys the players get, but he also gets these other toys that the players can never have. And by the way, his job is to provide your antagonists. It breaks the social contract of the game.

My firm position is that if the DM is going to break the rules, and is going to say that the players can never break the rules that way, then he'd best an incredibly good reason. I don't think, generally speaking, designers should ever do it. Not in core rules and not in campaign settings.

This is actually one of the things that's turning me off on 4e. Mearls et al have decided to break the social contract with the entire text of a core rulebook.

 

[The Grumpy Celt]

This is an old gripe (or screed or possibly a rant) of mine.

To put succinctly as I know how; the “good” NPCs are a like goads the DM can use to direct and punish the PCs (and by extension, the players) and the players have to take it, or leave the group. If an “evil” NPC treated the PCs badly – lies, abuse, cold use, manipulation, theft, destruction, killing, etc. – then the PCs (and by extension, the players) are fully within their rights to kill the b*st*rd. If a “good” NPC does the same thing, then the PCs (and again by extension, the players) are supposed to say, “Thank you sir, can I have another” – after all, the NPC in question is the “good” guy and thus anyone who disagree with them is “evil.”

The “good” NPCs are there to allow the DM close to direct control over the party.

With Khelben this was at its most transparent. His character was killed in the novel Blackstaff, but this merely replaced one troubling NPC with another and does nothing to address way and reason that kind of NPC is created.

For example, I'll agree with Blackstaff, and toss in Drizzt and ELminster.

Drizzt I can take or leave – I am not a fan, but he does not offend me either. Elminster, in stories by Greenwood, can irritate me but not as deeply as some. Greenwood seems to kept him something of a mental case, which ameliorates him somewhat.

…the Masked Lord system is a paranoia-inducing one, perfect for secret cabals and corruption...

I totally agree – when I run the city, it is a kind of gangster-infected would-be Imperial Rome.

Khelbhen specifically is annoying because he's simultaneously so powerful, so bossy, and so secretive...

The only thing Khelben lacked in terms of becoming Big Brother, al la 1984, was shaving his beard, keeping the moustache and plastering posters of himself all of the city.

On the other hand, I doubt Wesley Crusher, Jar Jar Binks, or Anakin Skywalker were meant to be so incredibly annoying... it just fell out that way.

Mesa thinkin’ that’s a good point.

If you don't like them or they annoy you, don't use them.

Well, that’s easy to say, but it’s like telling someone not to worry about the American Midwest if they don’t like farmers; they and it are all too much part of the cultural landscape and life to just ignore and still and a functionally complete setting.

 

[Tarek]

Why is it that some NPCs in some RPGs manage to be so viscerally irritating? Is it bad writing? Good writing? Personality clash? Rules violations? It's certainly not just me, because I hear the same complaints about the same NPCs from a wide variety of DMs.

I mean, it's been a while since I ran the Realms. I don't even really remember much about Khelben "Blackstaff" Arunsun. I do remember one thing - I hate him and would enjoy seeing how far I could kick his skull. I know I've somehow managed to get my players to feel the same way, without them directly interacting with him, I remember the sneers when his name is mentioned.

I wonder if someone has thought about this more than I, and come up with a more rational and/or detailed explanation?

Overused DMPC syndrome. Plus the whole "arrogant guy who can kick the snot out of your party singlehandedly no matter how powerful you THINK you are, neener neener" complex.

Basically, Elminster wasn't supposed to be as prominent as he has become, and Khelben is frequently "in your face" if you're adventuring in Waterdeep.

Seriously. He's like the Chief of Police who somehow always manages to be there to take away whatever goodies you managed to wrest from Halaster or from Skullport or from whatever evil threat/cult you manage to put down while it was growing RIGHT UNDER his nose. He has time to make sure you don't have any 'nasty magic baubles' but never has time to clean out the den of evil himself?

Shya, right.

 

[migo]

As a DM, I've always strongly disliked incorporating NPCs that someone else has written into my adventures; it always seems inauthentic. Using NPCs makes me feel like I'm writing fanfiction, which I'm allergic to. It makes me break out in suck.


But in dealing with FR NPCs, one thing immediately springs to mind.

There was an adventure where Elminster was walking around in a dungeon with a dog, while telling it to 'heel'. He was also holding a wand. A healing wand. A healing wand that would restore the party every time he said 'heel'.

I'm sure the writers thought that was very clever indeed.

Damn. I remember that. Can't remember the adventure though.